- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Rational thinking and understanding that not everything is the same is generally a good way to go. You should try it sometime.
I agree. It just makes sense to do something about senseless death caused by improper use of inanimate objects. For instance:
NSC estimates 1.6 million crashes caused by cell phone use and texting
1.6 MILLION accidents caused by cell phone use. That's almost 44,000 per day. Huh. It seems that there are a lot of people not paying any attention to those no texting and driving laws.
So here are a few suggestions that might help:
Manditory background checks for buying a cell phone. If you have ever had a cell phone related accident, you don't get one. It would be as simple as using the existing NICS system to run applications. Now, when purchasing a firearm there is a questionaire you fill out in the 4473 form, and it is a FELONY to lie on that form. Same here. Lie on the form and go to jail. Right now if you have been convicted of a felony you can not legally own a firearm, ever. Should be the same for cell phones. Also, in the case of firearms if you commit a crime, even if it is a misdemeanor, the presence of the firearm automatically constitutes a felony. If you are involved in a car accident and your phone was active (easy enough to check the time of the accident and your cell phone records using the NSA metadata) you automatically are charged with a felony.
I'm sure glad you brought this up Tererun. Something needs to be done. For the children.
Cell phone use in car accidents is almost 50,000 times more common than mass shootings, even by your standards. So why are we not seeing more laws being proposed to restrict cell phone usage while driving? You know, for the children.
You have to be able to see everything, and that is where the problem lies. They used a threshold to obscure information. You cannot make a rational choice or have a rational idea about data you do not have. Anyone who ever says there is an anti-gun bent in america should check themselves because this is clearly a way to lower mass shooting numbers.
All you do is confuse things. You are blinded by your ideological blinkers.
That is not an argument, that is whining.
You don't provide any substantial points to argue about, just some fake lists in attempts to inflate the number of mass shootings. Apparently, according to you mass shootings can only be dealt with as a serious problem if we artificially inflate the number of incidents. That is simply stupid and shows you are simply pursuing an ideological agenda, not rational debate.
OK, I understand what you are saying, but they were not being addressed in this case, they were just being ignored. So by your own logic keeping these events out of the equation is keeping data out that could be used to come up with some way to stop some events. If that is your point then you should include incidents where people were just wounded if for no other purpose than to see what was done in those cases to mitigate the death. But that is not part of the discussion on the national scale. We leave those incidents out so that it seems like they do not happen.
How many of those are gang/drug related vs. incidents where someone walks into a theater and starts shooting?
Does it really matter when you are trying to come up with an honest way to reduce their effect?
yes, we need to start reporting them properly. It does no good for the police and the shrinks to know you are a nutbar if the guy down at the gun store doesn't know it.
S you will be ensuring we all have access to your medical records, right? Frankly...Im not going to sell you a car if you might be mentally insecure. Im also going to ban you from entering any hardware stores, grocery stores where chemicals are sold, and ANY tpe of gas station. Oh...and Im not going to rent to you either. If you are such a risk you cant be trusted with a firearm, I also cant trust you in one of my homes. Think of the children...You have to be able to see everything, and that is where the problem lies. They used a threshold to obscure information. You cannot make a rational choice or have a rational idea about data you do not have. Anyone who ever says there is an anti-gun bent in america should check themselves because this is clearly a way to lower mass shooting numbers.
You have to be able to see everything, and that is where the problem lies. They used a threshold to obscure information. You cannot make a rational choice or have a rational idea about data you do not have. Anyone who ever says there is an anti-gun bent in america should check themselves because this is clearly a way to lower mass shooting numbers.
Cellphones have more purpose than guns do. That was a very bad argument. If you want to argue about cell phones please do it elsewhere. Make your analogy fit next time.
If the police and the shrinks know someone is a nutbar, then it should be on the books and show up in a background check. Agreed.
S you will be ensuring we all have access to your medical records, right? Frankly...Im not going to sell you a car if you might be mentally insecure. Im also going to ban you from entering any hardware stores, grocery stores where chemicals are sold, and ANY tpe of gas station. Oh...and Im not going to rent to you either. If you are such a risk you cant be trusted with a firearm, I also cant trust you in one of my homes. Think of the children...
There is the breakdown. The check is not good. But yes, once those things are in place and they are done properly and efficiently, and i would like a little traning thing but once that is done sure.
oh no...I'm sorry. If you are too mentally unstable to own a firearm you are too mentally unstable to drive a car. Or buy gas. Or live in my rentals. I have an obligation to ensure mentally unstable people don't put my other tenants or the neighbors at risk. We will be needing those records open to the public. Luckily...with Obamacare coming that will likely be the norm. And then employers, landlords, private sellers of ANYTHING that might be dangerous can all exclude those they determine a risk.yes, if you wish to own something for a purely recreational purpose and you don't need it for going places you can show your medical records to those people who are involved with getting you the permit. You do not have to make them public and post them all over the place, please do not be absurd.
And by railing against gun violence as opposed to violence without the qualifier, you're using a threshold to obscure information. Agreed?
I'll refer you to the violent crime rate in the UK vs. the "gun crime" rate in the UK. Same goes for Australia.
Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online
Cell phones have a different purpose than guns do. You don't use a gun every day like you do a cell phone, but if you are in a situation where you need a gun, there is little else that is more useful to you. I guess you can use your cell phone to call someone with a gun to come and rescue you.
That is not even an argument against what I am talking about.
So the problem is not the lack of background checks, but the efficiency of reporting and record keeping. Right? I have no problem with training. It should be done in the later years of elementary schools though. Kindergartners with weapons could be pretty dangerous...
oh no...I'm sorry. If you are too mentally unstable to own a firearm you are too mentally unstable to drive a car. Or buy gas. Or live in my rentals. I have an obligation to ensure mentally unstable people don't put my other tenants or the neighbors at risk. We will be needing those records open to the public. Luckily...with Obamacare coming that will likely be the norm. And then employers, landlords, private sellers of ANYTHING that might be dangerous can all exclude those they determine a risk.
Why isn't it? You prefer seeing governments continue to kill millions of people?
When you are ready to come back to the argument I will discuss it.
you are presuming an individual is a threat. Mentally unstable do not cease to be a threat simply because they can't legally access a firearm. (And to point out the obvious...the Sandy hook shooter was not the purchaser. The mother was. So...guess we need to have medical histories on anyone associated. Husbands, wives, kids, partners.those are different things with different uses and should have their use evaluated on their own merrit. You would not say a gun is a volleyball. We are humans, we are able to differentiate between things and make arguments.
No, Thank you for putting forth a thought out response. We are just talking on the internet here, but discussions lead to understanding and hopefully ideas. the reason I brought this up was because the numbers were surprising to me because I really did not think there were that many incidents where a spray of bullets hit a number of people. With that data we can look at the cases where it happened and come up with some ideas on how to stop it and mitigate the damage.
Now i know i am going to get screamed at for this, but since that is the case wouldn't making guns less available lower the damage simply because other weapons are less deadly and powerful? before the people start bitching, I really do not want guns to be banned. I want an honest discussion about the problem. There may be people who should not have access to guns. You do not stick a pedophile into a school and say suck it up. the reasons why you keep pedos away is because it keeps them out of situations where they can do the wrong thing, and that lowers the numbers of incidents. So if there is someone we know is wacky or has made bad choices that have lead to a felony conviction we should try to keep them away from guns because of their tendencies. To honestly do that requires an ability to look at a person's medical record (not in public view), and their criminal history. I am even up for reinstatement of rights if the situation changes. Why can't we say if you are crazy, a criminal, or housing either of those two things that you are making a sacrifice and part of that sacrifice means you do not have a gun, or perhaps the gun would be maintained in a facility until such time that your home is free from the crazy or criminal person.
You are certainly right that we see more of the horrors of man than ever before due to recordings and media. We even see the violent bloodthirsty fantasies of man in movies and video games. Though I am not for banning them or censorship, I do think that has to have an effect on us that has never before been seen. We have to adapt to that and help out those who are having problems and that involves an honest look at things. I know it is hard to do that with people trying to manipulate data in every conceivable way for every conceivable goal.
Before i say this the US is not the UK or any place with banned guns, and there would be huge fallout from trying it so I can't say that is a solution in our case. However, there is evidence that massive and effectively limiting the availability of guns has reduced the damage of violence in the countries that have effectively enforced it. I believe in the freedoms and rights for responsible people so I am actually not for banning guns. I am for a system that requires you to step up to a level to which you can own them. I think having people make that step to some sort of certification like a license will prompt people to do the right thing and keep their nose clean.
Oh, and I want to say again, thank you for a great response. I know you do not give a **** what i think about you, but that showed me you are able to do so. I was wrong about you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?